Hartley v. Folds

101 S.E. 130, 24 Ga. App. 456, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 851
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 19, 1919
Docket10466
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 101 S.E. 130 (Hartley v. Folds) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hartley v. Folds, 101 S.E. 130, 24 Ga. App. 456, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 851 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Opinion

Smith, J.

1. “All claims arising ex contractu between the same parties may be joined in the same action, and all claims arising ex delicto may in like manner be jjoined.” Civil Code (1910), § 5521; Hillside Cotton Mills v. Ellis, 23 Ga. App 45 (4), 46 (97 S. E. 459). Claims arising ex contractu can not be joined in the same suit with claims arising ex delicto. Wolff v. Southern Ry. Co., 130 Ga. 251 (60 S. E. 569).

2. The cause of action upon which the plaintiff sought to recover the profits which would have arisen from the purchased timber had not the defendant breached the contract of sale was a claim ex contractu. The cause of action upon which the plaintiff sought to recover damages arising from the alleged destruction by the defendants of the plaintiff’s lumber and sawmill was a claim ex delicto.

3. An action based upon a claim ex contractu can not by amendment be converted into an action ex delicto. Civil Code (1910), § 5683; Sharpe v. Columbus Iron Works Co., 136 Ga. 483 (71 S. E. 787).

4. In this case the court erred in allowing the amendment by which it was sought to convert the claim sued on ex contractu into an action ex delicto; and in overruling the demurrer based upon the ground that the petition contained a misjoinder of causes of action.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur. Smith & Smith, for plaintiffs in error. S. Holderness, Buford Boylcin, contra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cuttino v. Mimms
105 S.E.2d 343 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1958)
INGRAM & LeGRAND LUMBER CO. INC. v. BUNN
58 S.E.2d 193 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Watson v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.
167 S.E. 718 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Darnell v. Toney
154 S.E. 379 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Cox v. Burt
122 S.E. 631 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
101 S.E. 130, 24 Ga. App. 456, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartley-v-folds-gactapp-1919.